Evaluating a Humanitarian Action Proposal


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluating a Humanitarian Action Proposal

  1. 1. Evaluating a Humanitarian Action Project
  2. 2. Why Evaluation• To assess the quality of the project• To see if it fits into the mandate of the organization• To see if the needs and aspirations of the community is captured properly• Value for money• Make decisions: select, fine tune, reject
  3. 3. Key Indicators Used for Evaluation• Relevance• Effectiveness• Efficiency• Capacity and Support• Sustainability• Imp (whether all the documents required are in place)
  4. 4. The Project• A Post Emergency Disaster Risk Reduction Project in Northern Sri Lanka• Submitted to European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection• Duration: 12 Months• Proposed Budget: Euros 128.806,00• Financing Mechanism: 100% from ECHO
  5. 5. Relevance• Appropriateness of the specific objective, pertinence of the action in regards to the real needs of the population• Appropriateness of the action to the physical and political environment• Link of the principal objective of the action with DG ECHO strategy
  6. 6. Project Context• The project seems to be in line with local needs and aspirations of the community therefore it is highly relevant• Installation of the early warning system could reduce the impact of disaster• Weather conditions can lead to heavy rains, thunderstorms and floods• N E Sri Lanka is also vulnerable to cyclone and tsunamis.• The impact of civil war has further enhanced the vulnerability of the community
  7. 7. Efficiency• Measuring outputs in relation to the inputs• Alternative approaches to achieving the same output• How economically resources were utilized: Human Resources, finance and time
  8. 8. Cost Efficiency• Cost broken down by sector is rationally allocated• Cost for transportation: further information needed on what kind of a vehicle will be used for transportation• Time allocated for transportation seems a bit unrealistic: duration of the project 12 months – time for planning• HR Cost: Expatriate: 33% of the budget• Program cost V/s Program support cost = 60:40
  9. 9. Time Efficiency: realistic management schedule• Three phases: establishment, capacity building & implementation• Difference between M&E
  10. 10. Human Resources Efficiency• Should reflect staff responsibility, support, development and well being• The proposal does not state anything about the criteria and selection for team recruitment
  11. 11. Effectiveness• Are the objectives effective compared to the problem statement?• Do the results correspond with the aimed objectives?Output, outcome and impact
  12. 12. Output• Objectives are coherent with objectives of ICDM and their former projects• No clear percentages in objectives: difficult to assess – F.e.: “participating communities are aware of their risk situation” and “participation of women is ensured”  what percentage of the participating communities and what percentage of the women?• Objectives should be more specific
  13. 13. Outcome and Impact• In general: the stated results (outcome) match the stated objectives• However, one of the results implicates a raised awareness of Disaster Risk Reduction: – The area is already prone to natural disasters  are there not already existing coping mechanisms in use? – Not investigated by ICDM  could negatively effect the impact of the project
  14. 14. Capacity and Support• Whether the organization has the internal and external means to successfully implement the proposal• Whether the organization has the ability to critically assess its organizational capacity• Whether it has the strategies and resources in place to improve the organizational capacity
  15. 15. Internal Organizational Capacity• ICDM is well equipped and suitable for the project• Coordination and capacity of HR is not clear• It should consider adding training schemes for its team
  16. 16. Implementing Partner Capacity• Seva Lanka fits the mandate of the project• No point of contact has been mentioned• No information about the HR of the partner organization
  17. 17. Evaluation Methods• Method of evaluation proposed seems appropriate• As per ECHO guidelines the focal person for evaluation needs to be mentioned• No information on sharing the report with HQ.• Sharing of the evaluative feedback with ALNAP, UN and other international knowledge based organizations
  18. 18. Sustainability as Reflected• Involvement of community and other stakeholders in the project cycle• Co-operation and coordination between different stakeholders• Designing of the institutional mechanism• Availability of the local skills and knowledge to maintain the systems
  19. 19. Involvement of the Community• Enhances ownership• Management of the project after phase out• The Transfer of ownership should be a gradual process• Whether built into Project Cycle
  20. 20. Organization Perception• Presence of the organization• Its image• Interface between the organization and the community• Program Mode V/s Project Mode
  21. 21. Coordination between Stakeholders• Linkages and leverages• Mobilizing resources• Sharing expertise• Comprehensive project• Community, Community Based Organizations, Government, Civil Society, UN Clusters and Donors
  22. 22. Availability of Local Skills• Crucial when some of the components are imported from outside• Enhancing the skills of the community to manage innovation
  23. 23. Proposal: Organizations Presence• Pg 5 and Pg 13?• Present since 2004 and long term relationship with the community• Till date implemented six projects• Local partnership with Seva Lanka
  24. 24. Proposal: Involvement of the community• Pg 10, 19 and 35?• Designing: through community consultation involving the most vulnerable• Focuses on community contribution• Participatory M&E
  25. 25. Proposal: Coordination Between Stakeholders• Pg 39• Formalization of the relationships with key stakeholders• Robust mechanism for involving local level stakeholders• Silent on coordination at national level: Disaster Management Bureau, Un Clusters, agencies providing relief
  26. 26. Proposal: Local skills• Pg 31, 34, 35, 36• Gives due emphasis on creating village level volunteer for S&R and FA• EWS (imported): capacity building is reflected• Task Force: One time capacity building during the program. After that? Mechanism for constant capacity enhancement
  27. 27. Recommendations• More robust log frame based on SMART• Ratio between program and operational cost• Efforts should be made to develop a better linkage with national level institutions• M&E framework• Mechanisms are not yet in place to ensure sustainability of the capacity of the community.• Mechanism to ensure engagement of the community after the closure of the project.• Fine-tune capacity building strategies• Knowledge sharing mechanism• Conflict and DRR
  28. 28. Thank YouThe teamKiona BoltSilvi HurkmansYaoliang PengMaike BenemmaShakeb Nabi